(((THINKagainIAO))) Social Media (FBI) TANK, CEO
97.7K posts
@thinkagainIAO
If our lives were completely predictable, then, it would not be life | Give life your best shot | It's MORE THAN Left Vs Right. #AntiRacist #Love #Vote 🗺️💭🗨️
Boris Johnson will happily hang the last civil servant out to dry before he takes responsibility or does the right thing. Fresh from throwing junior staff under the bus, he’s plotting to sacrifice his henchman to save his own skin. Rotten to the core. theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
🔥THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of renters in the streets today, united in our fight against a housing system run for private profit. We have had enough of the exploitation and we are fighting back! Rent controls now! Council homes, not luxury flats!
🚨NEW: * Vetting led to Mandelson agreeing ‘mitigations’ to deal with security concerns * He was not allowed unsupervised access to former clients * All this was agreed and known about by Downing Street = no need for Robbins to block security clearance spectator.com/article/mandel…
@ShippersUnbound This blows claims of @10DowningStreet @Keir_Starmer @YvetteCooperMP and other ministers out of the water How can THEY not be aware if mitigation measures were in place?? PUT IN PLACE BY WHO?? ANSWER - By Downing Street Simple. C @StephenFlynnSNP @EdwardJDavey @ZackPolanski
Inside the Mandelson vetting fiasco - our deep dive this weekend * Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the cabinet office, spent weeks attempting to extract Mandelson's vetting report from the foreign office but to no avail * Olly Robbins, who has now been sacked as perm sec of the foreign office, has been accused of obstructing the release of the document * Little eventually obtained the document from UK Security Vetting on March 25. It was explosive. The Times has been told it was not a borderline case but an explicit recommendation that Mandelson should not be cleared * The summary Little obtained is said to have drawn on Mandelson's interviews with vetting officers - which were deeply personal, interviews with his friends, details of his business interests and even information from his bank accounts. The recommendation was not caveated * At this point Little informed Antonia Romeo, the Cabinet Secretary. They did two things. First, they attempted to get more clarity from Robbins as to why he had given Mandelson clearance. It was not forthcoming * Second, they sought legal advice on whether they could show the document to the PM. Why they did so is more opaque. Some people have pointed us to data protection concerns - the file was deeply personal and full of private data. Others have pointed to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which states that ministers to not have oversight of vetting. There will inevitably be more questions over this * There was also a broader concern that showing Starmer the vetting file risked undermining the principle of vetting - that it is a strictly private process and information is confidential * The Robbins position is that these issues meant he had a duty *not to* disclose the details of the vetting process to anyone. The No 10 position is that it was possible, as Little and Romeo eventually established * Friends of Robbins say that Starmer had made clear he wanted Mandelson by pre-announcing his decision. It made it much harder for Robbins to overrule the PM on security grounds * 'Starmer was stacking the deck by making the announcement before Mandelson had been vetted,' one said. 'What is the incentive structure [for Robbins] there?' * Robbins has said as much in public. He told MPs: “By the time we are describing it was clear that the prime minister wanted to make this appointment himself. Therefore, I understand, the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the foreign secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case the prime minister took advice and formed a view himself, and then we acted on that view.” * Robbins’ decision was complicated by the fact that the Foreign Office had been forthright in its opposition to the Mandelson appointment from the beginning, to the extent that one Downing Street insider describes Sir Philip Barton, Robbins’ predecessor, of having “had a breakdown” when the peer emerged as No 10’s preferred choice. * Robbins' allies also contend that he never saw the actual recommendation that Mandelson should not be granted developed vetting. They say it was ultimately up to him to consider the concerns raised and whether they could be mitigated * So we have a PM who accuses Robbins of acting in an 'unforgiveable' way. And Robbins, for his part, believes that he has done nothing wrong and was fully justified in keeping vetting report to himself * Where does it leave Starmer? At present there is not a significant groundswell of people calling for him to go. His catastrophic misjudgement in appointing Mandelson has already, to a degree, been priced in * But it doesn't exactly help, especially for a PM who many Labour MPs believe is already on borrowed time thetimes.com/uk/politics/ar…
